“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

I think I understand the basics of compatibilism. It’s not my perception that is flawed.

I'm not getting through.

If your understanding is that compatibilism is "contradictory by definition" then it's not the same compatibilism that is accepted/leant towards by the majority of professional philosophers.

You are arguing a against a strawman version of compatibilism.

So show me where there is a strawman. Stop beating around the bush.

Compatibilism: Philosophy’s Favorite Answer to the Free Will Debate | Philosophy Break

Popular claims that free will is an illusion tend to miss that, within philosophy, the debate hinges not on whether determinism is true, but on whether determinism and free will are compatible — and most philosophers working today think they are.

philosophybreak.com

 

[DBT]

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The meaning of given definitions compatbilist free will and determinism is not hard to grasp. That compatibilists neglect inner necessity in their given definition of free will is clear. Which is the reason for incompatibilism.

 

[DBT]

I think I understand the basics of compatibilism. It’s not my perception that is flawed.

I'm not getting through.

If your understanding is that compatibilism is "contradictory by definition" then it's not the same compatibilism that is accepted/leant towards by the majority of professional philosophers.

You are arguing a against a strawman version of compatibilism.

There is a good reason why you are not getting through; you are wrong. Compatibilism is a flawed argument.

 

[DBT]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

 

[pood]

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The meaning of given definitions compatbilist free will and determinism is not hard to grasp. That compatibilists neglect inner necessity in their given definition of free will is clear. Which is the reason for incompatibilism.

As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing as “inner necessity.” Necessity is a modal category of logic. Q.E.D. As I have also demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for me to pick Pepsi over Coke, even though I don’t. Q.E.D. again. That sure is a lot of Q.E.D.s for you to swallow, which I guess is why you keep regurgitating them.

 

[pood]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

No, he did not commit any such fallacy. So we can add ad populum fallacy to the modal fallacy as fallacies you don’t understand. Maybe you ought to read carefully what he wrote, just as it would behoove you to read carefully what I write.

 

[peacegirl]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

Exactly. What does the fact that because 59% of philosophers believe in compatibilism that this proves somehow that incompatibilism must be wrong? It doesn’t follow. It’s an Ad Populum: Appeal to Popularity with nothing to back it up. It’s analogous to Trump saying his policies are the best because of the crowds that come to his gatherings.

 

[DBT]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

No, he did not commit any such fallacy. So we can add ad populum fallacy to the modal fallacy as fallacies you don’t understand. Maybe you ought to read carefully what he wrote, just as it would behoove you to read carefully what I write.

He referred to the percentage of "professional philosophers' who support compatibilism. He did that for a reason.

 

[peacegirl]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

No, he did not commit any such fallacy.

Yes he did!

So we can add ad populum fallacy to the modal fallacy as fallacies you don’t understand. Maybe you ought to read carefully what he wrote, just as it would behoove you to read carefully what I write.

I read carefully what he wrote and I asked him to explain what I didn’t understand. He never responded probably because he had no answers. It’s all bluff and bluster with no meat! I even posted the different compatibilist definitions to unpack while at the same time giving him the benefit of the doubt. No response.

 

[peacegirl]

This is not a popularity contest

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

What point did I miss?

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The Ad Populum Fallacy now?

No, he did not commit any such fallacy. So we can add ad populum fallacy to the modal fallacy as fallacies you don’t understand. Maybe you ought to read carefully what he wrote, just as it would behoove you to read carefully what I write.

He referred to the percentage of "professional philosophers' who support compatibilism. He did that for a reason.

That’s also an appeal to authority. Two strikes against him. Where have the unbiased thinkers gone?

 

[DBT]

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The meaning of given definitions compatbilist free will and determinism is not hard to grasp. That compatibilists neglect inner necessity in their given definition of free will is clear. Which is the reason for incompatibilism.

As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing as “inner necessity.” Necessity is a modal category of logic. Q.E.D. As I have also demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for me to pick Pepsi over Coke, even though I don’t. Q.E.D. again. That sure is a lot of Q.E.D.s for you to swallow, which I guess is why you keep regurgitating them.

The basics.
Inner necessity is just another term for determinism. It refers to the brain and its information processing activity, mind, consciousness, which just like the events of the external world, is not exempt from being fixed or set by antecedents.....which is how determinism is defined.

 

[peacegirl]

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The meaning of given definitions compatbilist free will and determinism is not hard to grasp. That compatibilists neglect inner necessity in their given definition of free will is clear. Which is the reason for incompatibilism.

As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing as “inner necessity.” Necessity is a modal category of logic. Q.E.D. As I have also demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for me to pick Pepsi over Coke, even though I don’t. Q.E.D. again. That sure is a lot of Q.E.D.s for you to swallow, which I guess is why you keep regurgitating them.

The modal fallacy is alive and well. It’s surprising to me that you don’t see the failed logic. It was possible to pick Pepsi over Coke if your deliberation gave you reasons to override choosing Coke. But that didn’t happen. You did not choose Pepsi because you did not desire it more than your desire to choose Coke. IOW, it gave you less satisfaction, rendering choosing Pepsi at that exact moment (which, btw, cannot be repeated to prove you could have chosen Pepsi) an absolute impossibility! You keep saying that before and after a choice is made cannot go from contingent to necessity.That is 100% not true.

 

[peacegirl]

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The meaning of given definitions compatbilist free will and determinism is not hard to grasp. That compatibilists neglect inner necessity in their given definition of free will is clear. Which is the reason for incompatibilism.

As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing as “inner necessity.” Necessity is a modal category of logic. Q.E.D. As I have also demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for me to pick Pepsi over Coke, even though I don’t. Q.E.D. again. That sure is a lot of Q.E.D.s for you to swallow, which I guess is why you keep regurgitating them.

The basics.
Inner necessity is just another term for determinism. It refers to the brain and its information processing activity, mind, consciousness, which just like the events of the external world, is not exempt from being fixed or set by antecedents.....which is how determinism is defined.

Inner necessity is what defines determinism, not just external dealings. Our choices are fixed by the contingencies (or antecedents) that are used by the agent (also beyond our control) to come to a decision. We cannot always predict what someone will decide from moment to moment because we are not them. These neural pathways are constantly at work everyday all day, but we aren’t always conscious of the mechanism behind the scenes. All DBT and me are doing is trying to show how it is impossible for free will to break this causal chain in any way (i.e. meaning our deliberations that push us in a particular direction) based on our unique genetics, predispositions, and environment. All of this is an internal processing, which Pood ignores. This is also why some people would choose differently than someone else given the same exact situation.

 

[DBT]

Determinism - each person makes decisions according to their own proclivities and the situation they are in.

The state of the brain, which is the decision maker, determines the decision that is made in any given instance, where an action can be taken and regretted a moment later....."if only I knew then what I know now," but of course, it's too late.

Had conditions been different does not exist within a deterministic system.

 

[The AntiChris]

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition".

If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely sensitive to obvious logical inconsistencies in their thinking.

Far more likely is the high probability that the definition of compatibilism used by 59% of professional philosophers is not the same as the definition used by peacegirl and DBT.

 

[peacegirl]

Determinism - each person makes decisions according to their own proclivities and the situation they are in.

The state of the brain, which is the decision maker, determines the decision that is made in any given instance, where an action can be taken and regretted a moment later....."if only I knew then what I know now," but of course, it's too late.

Yes, it’s too late to change the moment that has already passed, but it helps us to make a better decision the next time a similar situation presents itself. It’s called 20/20 hindsight. This supports determinism as we receive an ever changing panorama of new information through our interaction with the environment.

Had conditions been different does not exist within a deterministic system.

That is true. The reality was that conditions were not different so it doesn’t apply within a deterministic system. Determinism does not take away anything from anyone. It does not prescribe or force a choice against a person’s will. I think there’s a fear that if determinism is true, it deprives people of their humanity because they are reduced to automatons. That’s not true because we still get to choose, even though only one choice is ever possible at any given moment.

 

[DBT]

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition".

If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely sensitive to obvious logical inconsistencies in their thinking.

Far more likely is the high probability that the definition of compatibilism used by 59% of professional philosophers is not the same as the definition used by peacegirl and DBT.

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority, even where the difference is not even that large.

You could say that nearly as many 'professional philosophers disagree on the matter. So what?

The issue is still that inner necessity poses just as much a challenge to the notion of free will as external force, coercion or undue influence.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

 

[The AntiChris]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".


On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

 

[peacegirl]

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition".

If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely sensitive to obvious logical inconsistencies in their thinking.

Far more likely is the high probability that the definition of compatibilism used by 59% of professional philosophers is not the same as the definition used by peacegirl and DBT.

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority, even where the difference is not even that large.

You could say that nearly as many 'professional philosophers disagree on the matter. So what?

The issue is still that inner necessity poses just as much a challenge to the notion of free will as external force, coercion or undue influence.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

Could you elaborate on what is means by “deterministic manipulation by other agents?” This is confusing to me so I can’t imagine how it must be confusing to people who are trying to figure out which position is the most influential and makes the most sense. Determinism is a given if people understand that we are controlled by laws over which we have absolutely no control. It’s just a matter of explaining where there is a disconnect and where that disconnect can be explained where people can finally say, “I get it.”

 

[pood]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

Bingo!

That’s exactly why I said DBT does not understand the ad populum, fallacy, just as he does not understand the modal fallacy. Maybe if he would read more closely for comprehension, he would understand where he constantly goes wrong.

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

And not only that, on inspection, it turns out that most of those cherry-picked quotes are directed against libertarian free will and are from people who are compatibilists.